Tuesday, March 01, 2011

I've been driving a lot lately. I drove from New York to Akron, then from Akron to St. Louis, then from St. Louis to Lawrence, Kansas, then from Lawrence, Kansas to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, then from Cedar Rapids Iowa back to St. Louis, and then from St. Louis back to Akron. I've gone different ways with the problem of what to do to keep from nodding off while on long drives. For a while I was all "Buddhist" about it and refused to listen to the radio or any other form of audio entertainment. That was actually quite nice. You notice more of what's on the road that way.

But you can also get bored during long stretches of stuff that all looks the same. Another McDonald's, another Taco Bell, another billboard denouncing abortion... The brain works this way, no matter how many hours you've spent meditating. So I got an iPod and started downloading podcasts. One of the ones I've been enjoying lately is called Reasonable Doubts: Your Skeptical Guide to Religion. That's their blog, which I've never actually read (I looked it up for this article). You can download their podcasts here (although I get them from iTunes, myself).

It's a very informative show in which a group of nerdy atheists from Grand Rapids, Michigan discuss religion. The hosts are Jeremy Beahan, an Adjunct Professor teaching classes on Philosophy, World Religions, Biblical Literature, Aesthetics, and Critical Thinking through FSU, Luke Galen, an Associate Professor of Psychology at Grand Valley State University, and David Fletcher, the founder and former chair of CFI Aquinas College. One of the hosts (I forget which one) identifies himself as a lapsed evangelical Christian. When it comes to Christianity, they know their stuff.

But they don't know a whole lot about Buddhism, which is unfortunate. I recently listened to a podcast featuring an interview with Stephen Batchelor. The interview itself was really nice. I like Stephen Batchelor. But the long introduction to the interview contained a lot of really common misunderstandings about Buddhism. This really surprised me given the depth of knowledge about Christianity the hosts demonstrated.

Apparently one of the hosts has visited a temple. He made the statement that when playing to Western audiences the Buddhists tend to "hide the crazy" until said Westerners are hooked. None of the hosts seem ever to have attempted to practice any meditation beyond the very introductory stages. This may be the root of their confusion. Trying to explain Buddhism without having any background in meditation is like trying to explain baseball without ever having actually played. You can get some of the superficial stuff correct. But beyond that you're going to be indulging in pure speculation, drawing a lot of inferences from what you imagine things to be like.

I will not deny that there is a lot of crazy stuff out there that labels itself Buddhism. Genpo Roshi's Big Mind® nonsense is an obvious example. Even more traditional forms of Buddhism indulge in a certain degree of craziness. Like the obsession with reincarnation in certain sects, or various supernatural and superstitious elements present in others.

But the hosts made some statements that really annoyed me because they're common assumptions that appear to be accepted as solid fact by a large number of academics and intellectuals. But they are completely mistaken. One was that the only pure form of Buddhism out there is Theravada (pronounced tare-ah-vah-dah, the h after the t is silent). Theravada Buddhism presents itself as an unbroken lineage stemming from Buddha's earliest followers which preserves its original spirit.

In fact, though, the historical research I'm familiar with has it that Theravada, like Zen, was a reform movement started long after Buddha's death. And, like Zen, it was an attempt to get in touch with the original teachings of Buddhism. The difference between Theravada and Zen is that Theravada rejects all of the Mahayana sutras.

The Mahayana sutras, as I'm sure many readers know, were composed hundreds of years after Buddha's death, yet often contain sayings attributed to Buddha and to his original followers. I don't feel that this was any attempt at forgery in the way we understand the term today. Rather it was a literary device that was accepted at the time.

The Theravada folks decided that these inauthentic sutras should be ignored and that only what was written in the most ancient sources -- the Pali canon -- should be accepted. Unfortunately, even the most ancient sources we have for Buddha's words were composed at least 200 years after his death. Some of the Mahayana sutras date from around the same time. The Pali canon may be closer to what Buddha actually said. But we don't really know to what degree.

Zen, on the other hand, accepted certain of the Mahayana sutras based on their content. It rejected others. Most Zen teachers I know are a little ambivalent about the Pali canon, taking it much like they do the Mahayana sutras, according to its content.

Zen kind of looks upon Buddha the way scientists look upon Einstein. Science reveres Einstein as the originator of much of what we understand about physics today. But they don't consider him to be infallible. Furthermore, no scientist would reject new additions to our understanding of physics simply because Einstein himself had not actually come up with them.

If Buddhism were a religion it would be blasphemy to suggest that someone other than Buddha might have improved upon what Buddha taught. But Buddhism is not a religion and Zen does take the shocking view that it is possible that others have built upon Buddha's original findings and perhaps even - gasp! - improved upon them. Or it may be more comfortable to say that perhaps these later folks didn't so much improve upon Buddha's ideas as express them a bit more clearly or in a more accessible way.

The other thing the guys at Reasonable Doubts kept saying over and over and over that bugged the shit out of me was this. They said that Mahayana Buddhism, which they explained to their audiences as a bastardization of the pure Theravada tradition, had introduced irrationality into Buddhism with the concept of emptiness. This concept of emptiness, they said, implies that all statements are their opposites. This, they told us, violates the "law of identity A = A" (that's how they repeatedly said it). Therefore it is impossible to make any rational statement in Mahayana Buddhism.

The Reasonable Doubts podcast has a habit of degenerating into something like lessons in the art of debate for secular humanists. The focus seems to be on how to defeat religious people with logical argument. The hosts were frustrated because they believed that the concept of emptiness introduced unfalsifiable statements and prevented any rational argument. The hosts seemed at a loss for hints to their listeners on how to defeat Buddhists in debate.

Now, I'm not sure where exactly they got their information about the Mahayana doctrine of emptiness. Maybe there's a text book out there that explains it this way, or some authority on Buddhism who lectures like this. Or maybe it's just in the air somehow. But the idea that the doctrine of emptiness means Mahyana Buddhism is all about being illogical is very popular. I've encountered it a lot.

I believe that this conclusion about the doctrine of emptiness negating the law of identity (A=A) therefore no rational statement can be made runs something like this. I'm guessing here, because this is so foreign to my understanding of the doctrine of emptiness that I have a hard time getting my head around it. But here goes nothin'.

1) The doctrine of emptiness says everything is empty of self nature (so far so good).

2) If everything is empty of self nature then every thing in the universe is its exact opposite. White is black, war is peace, The Beatles are The Bee Gees. (This is already going wrong)

3) Since every thing is its opposite no rational statement can be made.

4) Therefore, Mahayana Buddhists are all crazy because they believe that good is evil, chocolate is peanut butter, and Charlie Sheen is the Dalai Lama*. You can't even argue with people like that!

The actual doctrine of emptiness bears no relation to this. Even if your buddy the Buddhist at the coffee shop down the street claims it does and even if he ought to know because he read a book by Alan Watts six year ago.

The biggest problem is that the doctrine of emptiness is not an intellectual supposition. It is not a theory arrived at by considering the problems of existence with the thinking mind. It is an attempt to explain in words the experience of Zen practice.

Buddhists do not think pink is orange, fish are elephants and Paris Hilton is the entire London Symphony Orchestra and Chorus. Things are what they are. Zen texts like the Sandokai (Harmony of Equality and Difference) are not trying to refute the law of identity. Things are different from each other. Yet ultimately all things are of one substance. And by "ultimately" I don't mean in some future realm where they have all melted into one another in preparation for the next expansion of the universe. All things are connected and inseparable from each other right now. This is clearly visible once you know how to look for it. But provisionally we can say that A does indeed equal A. And that is important.

Every concept the mind can create includes its opposite. No thought is ultimate because each idea depends on every other idea it might possibly contrast with for its apparent self existence. Our own existence as individuals is dependent upon all of creation. This does not negate our individual existence. It is an attempt to see our individual existence in a different light.

(big sigh)

Oh man! Can you believe I have worked for something like four hours on this one silly blog piece? And I still haven't gotten anywhere near what I wanted to say.

Oh well.

I hope it was at least funny.

Thanks.

*A third irksome aspect of the podcast, which I'm not even addressing is how the presenters assume that the Dalai Lama is the #1 uber Buddhist of all time, the ultimate human expression of all of Buddhism.

(I’m still taking a break from reading the comments section of this blog. If you have something you feel you must say to me in response to this, write me an email at spoozilla@gmail.com. If you just post something in the comments section, I will not see it.)

Hunter S. Thompson used to say there is no fanatic like a converted fanatic. This is especially true of atheists. I really have no idea why it so important to them that others agree with their views. I have so many conversations with atheists that come down to: Either you agree with me or you are an idiot. Sigh - it is not really worth the time.

The recent revelations of continuing sexual misconduct by Kanzeon Zen Center abbot and Big Mind originator Dennis Genpo Merzel, following as it does close on the heels of the scandal and clouded retirement of the Japanese missionary priest and founder of the Zen Studies Society, Eido Tai Shimano, has badly shaken the Western Zen mahasangha.

As it should.

Within the firestorm of complaint and allegation that finally sparked after many years of rumor, Shimano Roshi did everything he could to save his position. After apologizing publicly for at least the most recent of the many, many allegations of sexual misconduct, which seemed to slow the storm, he then apparently wrote a letter to the New York Times denying the substance of his apologies and the reasons for his retirement to an emeritus status. Although it seems instead of mailing it, simply producing a Japanese version to be sent to supporters in that country. Speculation about why he chose to do that is speculation. He did it. However, when it was translated into English this became some sort of last straw leading many Zen teachers, myself included, to publicly call for his dismissal. How the ZSS has negotiated his final separation is still taking shape, but it seems he really is no longer going to be allowed to teach at their centers.

Merzel Roshi seems to have a bit firmer control of his organization even in the midst of his own firestorm. While “disrobing” and resigning from the larger White Plum lineage community to which he had belonged, he seems to have appointed the vice-abbot for what appears to be only a nominally separated Kanzeon Zen Center. However he appears to have decided to continue using the Zen title roshi. The shove to push of his reformations seem to be summarizable in the statement “Roshi will not be teaching at the Zen Center for an indefinite period of time.” His strategy appears to be to separate himself from the principal organization to which he has any accountability, the White Plum, and to then lay low for a bit…

His credibility among the mainstream of Zen teachers has long been strained. I've felt uncomfortable with his accepting money from the Frederick Lenz Foundation, an organization that exists to purchase a revisionist view of the late and extremely notorious cult leader who operated under the self-proclaimed style “Zen Master Rama.” The truth is a number of Zen folk have accepted their money. And, it could be argued the only difference between accepting money from the Lenz Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation is time from when the scoundrel who started it died. However, I then found that Merzel has gone beyond taking dirty money to pretending that Lenz was some kind of Zen teacher. This is amazing and hard to excuse from someone who is supposed to be a Zen teacher.

I don’t know what to say about Big Mind (registered trademark) beyond saying if it is, as Merzel has claimed, another turning of the Wheel, a new revelation of the Buddhadharma, I will have to admit I’ve missed what the Dharma is all about. As have all other Zen teachers along the way before this great revelation. Which, to my deluded eye, is a silly adaptation of Voice Dialogue therapy, an interesting, if to me, not especially compelling psychological model, adding in, from where I stand, a dualistic projection of personality as if it were sunyata.

Bottom line to Genpo: Don’t let the door slap yr butt…

But the fallout for the Zen dharma is my real concern. Not Big Mind (registered trademark) Zen, real Zen.

And what is going on? What do these sex scandals and others in the past and, you know, coming in the future mean?

There are those who say we need to grow up and walk away from Zen teachers.

I respectfully say you can. And you may well find a true and useful and healthful path. It won’t, however, be Zen.

The Zen way has evolved within a system of training, or rather a cluster of training systems, all of which require spiritual direction. It is based upon at its core the relationships between teachers and students.

The way Zen came west, through individual teachers with limited supervision, and then establishing centers that are more or less isolated from each other has created a cultish system. That’s the problem, aggravated, of course, by the inflated language of transmission. I’ve explored both of these issues before.

But this is a historical anomaly, being corrected by the expansion of Zen in the West and the constantly increasing number of teachers, domestic and imported.

I’m confident we are also at the edge of a time where people are no longer dependent upon keeping a relationship with a specific teacher or giving up the practice. Already this is true in the San Francisco Zen Center inheritance as well as the Kwan Um School of Zen. Even our little Boundless Way project with three and in a few months four teachers mitigates significantly the cultish inclination. In some ways the scandals reflect that reality. We don’t have to put up with the inappropriate in order to have access to the way.

Today there are plenty of teachers out there. (Although I'd do more than just look at the list. I believe Genpo is still listed there...)

And teachers are essential to the process. And they, we, are not minor deities. You need to know it. They, we, need to know it.

We need, rather, to keep our eyes on the ball.

Awakening is the project.

And we need to hold each other to account on the way.

We do this in healthy and respectful ways, then Zen will weather these and other scandals and bumps of our institutional adolescence.

Apparently, way back in 1992 Genpo Merzel already had a pattern of sexual misconduct and misappropriation of funds. Members of the American Zen Teachers Association (AZTA; then called Second Generations American Zen Teachers) expressed concern to Maezumi Roshi of the Los Angeles Zen Center, who was Genpo Merzel's teacher, and asked that Genpo's permission to teach be revoked.

However, many of Genpo's students, including women students, wrote to Maezumi to support Genpo and to question the ethics of his accusers. This was followed by a meeting at Green Gulch Farm at which Genpo faced some of the women who had accused him of abusing them, but in the end Maezumi chose not to revoke Genpo's teaching privileges.

Les Kaye added, "Almost twenty years ago, we tried to curtail Genpo's behavior and were told that we were in the wrong. Today we are being told by Genpo's more recent students that we are in the wrong for NOT doing something."

In a separate post, Dosho Port comments that part of the problem is that western Zen students and their teachers often fall into a kind of child-parent relationship, and this is not healthy. Adults students are, well, adults. Don't give up your power, Dosho says.

I agree with Dosho, but it's also the case that a lot of people coming into practice are in an emotionally vulnerable state. After all, if everything in their lives were peachy, they'd be less likely to seek out a Zen teacher.

And the Zen situation is complicated by the fact that, for the most part, there is no institutional authority over the teachers. The AZTA is a glorified listserv; as an organization, it has no disciplinary power beyond deciding who can be a member of AZTA.

Jesus Christ, This is about Sex, hot sweaty, clandestine sex. Two people (or more) married or not, find themselves in a situation away from home for two weeks on retreat, they hook up. Big deal. Who hasn't been to a conference, a convention, in Vegas, whatever, and if it involves mixed company, get drunk, hop in bed, and just fucking get it on. Its human. Get over it.

Good blog post, Brad...who is not reading the comments. I would only differ in saying that really understanding emptiness comes from zen awakening (satori / kensho) and not necessarily from 'zen practice' itself. A person can sit zen for 50 years and still not understand emptiness or only hold a conceptual view of it.

I too was dismayed by the ignorance of the folks at Reasonable Doubts as reported by Brad. And I liked much of what Brad had to say about Emptiness.

(This:

1) The doctrine of emptiness says everything is empty of self nature (so far so good).

- dispels the accusation previously levelled on this blog that Brad is so ill-informed about Buddhist emptiness that he has no idea it refers to absence of self-nature.)

But I am a tad bothered by this bit:

The biggest problem is that the doctrine of emptiness is not an intellectual supposition. It is not a theory arrived at by considering the problems of existence with the thinking mind. It is an attempt to explain in words the experience of Zen practice.

I guess we arrive at doctrines by relying on a combination of the 'thinking mind', experience and who-knows-what-else, but there's a suggestion in what Brad's written that emptiness is originally not an idea; it's originally an experience, a feeling, a sensation. Well, to me, it has to be a (very logical) idea; the absence of self-nature, or essence of things - and one that can be arrived at through observation of phenomena. It's an idea that thinkers who may never have meditated understand and appreciate.

Yes, I'm sure there are feelings, experiences that people have during meditation that they're happy to label "experiences of emptiness". Whether those feelings are dissociative states, feelings of self-less-ness (yeah, but who is feeling em?) or realisations of Emptiness with a capital 'E' is not knowable and will always remain a moot point. You can tell yourself whichever story you prefer (Democritus Sr ;)). As soon as you give your experience a name, you've got an "intellectual supposition". As soon as you relate it to what you've read or been told about Buddhist "Emptiness", you've got a "theory" or doctrine.

Do not reify "Emptiness"! Emptiness itself is empty," insists emptiness expert Nagarjuna. There is no "emptiness" to be experienced. Emptiness doesn't exist other than as an idea.

"but it's also the case that a lot of people coming into practice are in an emotionally vulnerable state."

Agreed. However, people in an emotionally vulnerable state should not begin practice with a Zen master. They should take care of their emotionally vulnerable state first, maybe with a shrink. A Zen master cannot help 'cure' an emotionally vulnerable person. It's like needing a hammer and grabbing for a screwdriver.

"After all, if everything in their lives were peachy, they'd be less likely to seek out a Zen teacher."

The best time to seek out a Zen master is when everything is peachy. They will help disabuse you of that notion. :)

My last post had a poor analogy--maybe it should be 'needing a Q-Tip and reaching for a bottle brush?'

In any case--A funny story, neither here nor there:

My sweetie and I were on the road two weeks ago and along the way had a brief discussion about the 'hand of (true) compassion that adjusts the pillow in the night.'

We finally got to a cheap hotel and went to sleep. Such hotels, as you may know, often have very this and inadequate pillows. Our bed had two pillows the thickness of wet pita bread, and about as pliable.

In the middle of the night, she reached over in her sleep and snatched the pillow beneath *my* head and put it under hers. I tried to get it back, but she held to it like a pitbull. Still sound asleep.

"...What if we live in a completely deterministic world, where even the outcome of a quantum random number generator is preordained? That would make us mere pawns in a greater game. "If the universe runs deterministically, there is nothing you can do as an experimentalist,"

"Subhuti, what do you think, should one look for Buddha in his perfect physical body?"

"No, Perfectly Enlightened One, one should not look for Buddha in his perfect physical body. Why? The Buddha has said that the perfect physical body is not the perfect physical body. Therefore it is called the perfect physical body."

This quote is from the Diamond Sutra, but there are many similar verses in the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras. The form of the quote seems to violate the law of identity (and the excluded middle!), but is only a rhetorical trick. To use an analogy, everyone knows that according to modern physics matter is mostly empty space. One could say, "When you understand matter is empty space, then you will really understand matter." That's a rhetorical trick to heighten the paradoxical nature of modern physics, but not really a contradiction. Similarly, the way we see phenomena, as separate and autonomous, is not how they really are. They are merely names imputed on appearances. Thus we can say phenomena are not phenomena (separate and autonomous, as they seem), therefore they are phenomena (imputations based on appearances.) So the explanation of emptiness is given the rhetorical form of a contradiction, but is not really contradictory.

The Secret is bullshit yes. Legitimate connections between Buddhism and quantum physics are not . Theories of quantum physics have begun to understand the universe, when one goes down to the smallest possible particles, as a collection of superposed scenarios that manifest when measured/observed. They have no inherent existence. In a nutshell as I understand it, and as many here have touched upon, the universe is a collection of scenarios, probabilities that manifest themselves into something we consider tangible when they all come together. This may not be exactly what Buddhist ideas such as sunyata and dependent origination are talking about, but got dammit it's as close as physics has gotten so far imo.

Anon 108, some compassionate, one-eyed demon should really twist your nose for that one. What exists other than ideas (conceptual thought?) LOOK!

I didn't say, nor am I suggesting that nothing exist other than ideas. What I meant might have been clearer if I'd continued to frame "Emptiness"in quotes.

Nagarjuna warned against attributing substantiality/self-existence to "Emptiness". That, and Brad's assertion: "The biggest problem is that the doctrine of emptiness is not an intellectual supposition. It is not a theory arrived at by considering the problems of existence with the thinking mind" were the issues I was discussing.

I think the problem lies in the reductive nature of the implication (the 'suggestion') that you draw from the quote. Even if Brad is suggesting that emptiness is 'originally' not an idea. It really depends on how one views 'originally'.

'Originally' in the context of your response to Brad's points can be sketched as having at least four aspects, each of which can be foregrounded:

1)Collective history: ie people did something, experienced something originally, and then tried to communicate that to others in language after the fact of that experience. And so this notion of emptiness has been passed down from generation to generation.

2)Personal History: ie I had an experience originally and then read about 'emptiness' and that explanation described my experience(s) very well.

and of course, where 1 and 2 can be inverted:

3)some notion like 'emptiness' originally existed in culture(s) before it was used to explain markedly different experiences or notions that have some aspects for which the label 'emptiness' seemed appropriate. 'Emptiness' since has been also a Buddhist notion that configures the way some see the world.

4)'Emptiness' was a notion that I read about and since then I have had experiences/thoughts configured in some way by my prior and ongoing relation to the notion.

I don't take any one of my four possibilities as more real than the others, but I do think that concentrating on one has its pitfalls.

There is the problem of reifying its non-existence equally, at least when writing about it, in same the way you seem to suggest Brad's writing doesn't take care of the problem of reifying its existence.

Brad was careful to write 'doctrine of emptiness' and contrast that with 'theory'. These terms can be used or taken loosely as interchangeable terms, or more accurately as terms with much in common but that are not identical.

The notion of 'doctrine' involves the codification of, amongst other things, practical instruction. Words that point to something in the context of being a Buddhist student and/or teacher, the language of teachings as indexical.

But even without having to find a definition, Brad gave some definition as to the way he was using these terms through contrast and in the context of the piece as a whole.

You seem to present your problem in terms of emptiness and "emptiness". Brad presents his in terms of both "the doctrine of emptiness" and as "the experience of Zen practice".

"The experience of Zen practice" points to the experiences involved in action, as what the 'doctrine of emptiness' is pointing to, if the teachings are successful. And he states that these doctrines are an 'attempt' to explain such in words.

The implication I draw is that intellectual suppositions (along with concomitant presuppositions) are mental activities that must be informed by the doings that are bound up with experiencings in other contexts.

Only then can one have a healthy set of intellectual suppositions regarding it.

So: emptiness does exist, doesn't exist, both does and doesn't, and neither, is pivotal. Easy to write. As with: That emptiness is empty involves non-emptiness too. But an engagement with such frees things up.

I prefer Bachelor's 'poet of emptiness' rather than 'expert', when referring to Nagarjuna. I'm inspired by the sense of an exploration of emptiness as emptiness. Emptiness exploring emptiness.

"The Dharma-nature spoken of by Baso is the Dharma-nature speaking the Dharma-nature", whereas the Dharma-nature written about by me is not even an expert.

Brad wrote: The Mahayana sutras, as I'm sure many readers know, were composed hundreds of years after Buddha's death, yet often contain sayings attributed to Buddha and to his original followers. I don't feel that this was any attempt at forgery in the way we understand the term today. Rather it was a literary device that was accepted at the time.

So other people took their own sayings, and gave credit to the Buddha, huh? Sort of like Seagal Rinpoche but in reverse.